schriverja

How did you address the moral questions? Do you or, don't you think that a Christian should follow those moral imperatives?

Davka

Psst - simon!

God doesn't exist.

dockeen

Why does a tri-omni god, always has existed, always will exist, need - a plan?

Finite men need a plan. The same sort of men who invented the god you worship.

simon kole

Read it again, the part on the moral law.

schriverja

So you, being a Christian, do observe the following?

• the Sabbath
• stand in the presence of the aged
• not cut the hair at the corners of your beard or sides of your hair
• not wear clothing made with different materials
• many, many more...

As you state:
Or as Jesus says in Matt 19:17
I'll assume that you do keep the commands I have cited, among many others, as you yourself say that you should, correct?

simon kole

There were three kinds of law in Israel:

1) moral (duties to God and man)
2) ceremonial (relating to forgiveness and righteousness)
3) civil (seat-belt laws, smoking ordinances, beards, clothing, standing, etc.).

Christians are not under 2) and 3), and 1) is naturally obeyed with love of God and love of neighbor.

As you state:
1) Until the new covenant was enacted by the death of Jesus, Israel was still under the old covenant, hence still under the commandments.

2) For insight into Jesus' encounter with the rich man in Mt 19:17, and why he pointed him to the commandments, see this, both my response quoted there from another post, as well as my response made there.

schriverja

Ok, now you are clearly making it up as you go along. Early on, you felt the need to add no qualifiers for the Law. Eventually, you added that there was a distinct difference between the Levitical Laws (apparently you view them as strictly ceremonial, although as I pointed out this isn't true), and the Decalogue (which was concerned only with morality, which also isn't true, as some of them are symbolic).

Now you add a third category: 'civil'.

None of these qualifiers (moral, civil, ceremonial) are used anywhere in the NT so far as I can tell. Not by the writers that wanted to do away with the Law (Paul and the author Hebrews) or basically everyone else, who seem to still think the Law is part of God's command.

simon kole

Neither is "Trinity" nor "sovereignty," but nevertheless, they are NT doctrine.

schriverja

The Trinity and sovereignty is at least supported by key passages (not to mention important extra-biblical texts like the Apostles Creed. This notion of the Law really being three separate categories, not so much. It sure seems like you just relabel anything inconvenient as 'civil', so you can ignore it. The thing is you paradoxically think that God actually inspired those laws in the first place. If I believed that God thought highly enough of something to put it in a holy text, I wouldn't so casually dismiss it.

Sheshbazzar

The curse of THE LAW in The Bible is repeated, and is explicit.

It does not say 'keep and do -some- of these My LAWS, COMMANDMENTS, STATUTES and ORDINANCES.'

It does not say; 'you may pick and choose among these My COMMANDMENTS, and KEEP and DO, -only whatever ones you like, or observe to DO only whatever few are most convienent to you.-'

THE LAW is ONE. A unified document and code.
Anyone found breaking even the least one of these Commandments, Statutes, and Ordinances, is in transgression of THE LAW, and is guilty
of ALL of THE LAW, and is condemned of ALL of THE LAW.

Without any exception, ALL are found guilty under THE LAW. (including anyone 'hung upon a tree'.)
THE LAW, ALL of it, stands eternal and inviolate, so that ALL men might be found guilty and be condemned by THE LAW.
For this, THE LAW is absolutely perfect.






.